Why Bond isn't a Sociopath
Gala Brand
Posts: 1,172MI6 Agent
I posted on this topic in my blog a couple of months ago and I thought ya'll might enjoy it. If you do like it, check out the blog. It's mostly noir literature and film, but some art and a little music thrown in. It's at http://cdwilsher.com
I’m taking a brief respite from film noir to write about something that is bugging me.
Specifically, Matt Damon.
More specifically, his comments about James Bond.
Damon must have a Bourne movie about to come out because he’s slagging James Bond again. In 2009, he called Bond a “sociopath.”
"They could never make a James Bond movie like any of the Bourne films because Bond is an imperialist, misogynist sociopath who goes around bedding women and swilling martinis and killing people," he said. "He's repulsive."
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/jan/29/bond-bourne-matt-damon
So, is Bond a sociopath? This actually wasn’t the first time or the last time that charge was made. After all, Bond is promiscuous, materialistic, violent, and (at least in the books) a borderline alcoholic. This seems to fit a sociopath.
But Bond is also prepared to give his life for his country and no sociopath ever is willing to do anything for somebody else.
No, Bond fits Carl Jung’s archetype of a warrior. His virtues are skill, courage, and discipline. He is prepared to give his life for those whom he has sworn to protect. He’s Beowulf in a bespoke suit, Sir Lancelot in an Aston Martin DB5. Ian Fleming’s one genius act was to combine an epic hero with an anti-hero and, in turn, give us a hero for our age.
Also according to Jung, a warrior does not fear death; he fears powerlessness. I always thought that the most effective torture scene would be for the villain to threaten to blind Bond but leave him alive and helpless.
But that might be too much for the kiddies.
If this seems a little far-fetched, I would point out that Fleming corresponded with Jung and Jung even gave Fleming permission to translate one of his lectures (Fleming was fluent in German). I'm sure Fleming was aware of Jung's concept of archetypes since it is the basis of his psychological theories.
And, unlike Matt Damon, I don’t think Bond is a misogynist. There’s no indication that he hates women. Male chauvinist, absolutely; but not a misogynist.
I’m taking a brief respite from film noir to write about something that is bugging me.
Specifically, Matt Damon.
More specifically, his comments about James Bond.
Damon must have a Bourne movie about to come out because he’s slagging James Bond again. In 2009, he called Bond a “sociopath.”
"They could never make a James Bond movie like any of the Bourne films because Bond is an imperialist, misogynist sociopath who goes around bedding women and swilling martinis and killing people," he said. "He's repulsive."
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/jan/29/bond-bourne-matt-damon
So, is Bond a sociopath? This actually wasn’t the first time or the last time that charge was made. After all, Bond is promiscuous, materialistic, violent, and (at least in the books) a borderline alcoholic. This seems to fit a sociopath.
But Bond is also prepared to give his life for his country and no sociopath ever is willing to do anything for somebody else.
No, Bond fits Carl Jung’s archetype of a warrior. His virtues are skill, courage, and discipline. He is prepared to give his life for those whom he has sworn to protect. He’s Beowulf in a bespoke suit, Sir Lancelot in an Aston Martin DB5. Ian Fleming’s one genius act was to combine an epic hero with an anti-hero and, in turn, give us a hero for our age.
Also according to Jung, a warrior does not fear death; he fears powerlessness. I always thought that the most effective torture scene would be for the villain to threaten to blind Bond but leave him alive and helpless.
But that might be too much for the kiddies.
If this seems a little far-fetched, I would point out that Fleming corresponded with Jung and Jung even gave Fleming permission to translate one of his lectures (Fleming was fluent in German). I'm sure Fleming was aware of Jung's concept of archetypes since it is the basis of his psychological theories.
And, unlike Matt Damon, I don’t think Bond is a misogynist. There’s no indication that he hates women. Male chauvinist, absolutely; but not a misogynist.
Comments
It also bothers me when people confuse Bond for being a misogynist, when you point out that he's merely a male chauvinist (still not a good quality). And though even his chauvinism has decreased in recent years, Daniel Craig still labels Bond a misogynist.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Hear, hear.
I'm not sure why Damon levels a criticism at Bond "swilling Martinis and killing people". Bourne does the latter but doesn't have the panache for the former. And "repulsive"?
Does Bond have any of these?
1. His charm is not superficial to people who know him. He may us superficial charm with the enemy, but so what?
2. He does not manipulate his friends/co-workers. Again, he would only try to manipulate someone while on a mission in order to do his job.
3. Shallow emotions. Bond's run deep - nothing shallow there.
4. Bond only has a lack of empathy for the villains.
5. Narcissistic. Not even a little. He rarely looks at himself in the mirror except when he's grooming and doesn't think he's exceptional looking - particularly
given all the scars he's has from his job.
6. Infidelity? Bond is not only faithful to his country and friends he is faithful to the women he has become emotional involved with. What about the affairs
he has with married women? I doubt if he would tell them he is being faithful to them. They more than likely don't care if sleeps with other married
women - the fact they only want him as a temporary sex toy is proof of that. There is no agreed upon fidelity to begin with - so that point is mute.
7. Incapable of human attachment? Hardly - see Vesper, Tiffany, Tracy, Kissy.
8. No feelings of remorse or guilt? See number 7.
9. Incapable of love? See number 7.
10. Never thinks anything is wrong with him? Bond second guesses his abilities and his character throughout the novels.
If you want to see a sociopath, just look at the villains Bond pursues...
Bond villains are often Psychopathic in as much as they can be charming and draw people to them, Sociopaths tend to be loaners rather than leaders.They also tend to have grand plans rather than impulses. Bond has a strong moral purpose and is capable of forming meaningful relationships.
On sociopaths, I don't think Bond is one though I've read that without sociopathic tendencies of certain figures in history, particularly the narcissistic aspects of these personalities and the need to distinguish oneself for achievement and adulation, civilization would not have progressed as much as it has.
Wasn't Zorin diagnosed as a psychopath? I vaguely remember. I know he displayed this trait in several ways in the movie but he didn't seem that different from other main Bond villains and maybe they could have showed a scene with him knifing or strangling a female in cold blood, at the risk of getting a PG-13 rating.
With movie Bond, the way he responded to deaths of "Bond girls" or allies varied. Contrary to Camille's criticism of Bond's disrespect of Mathis' body, he was deeply moved by his death. However, I always found it strange how indifferent he seemed when Aki died. Maybe he internalized his emotions in these times.
On sociopaths, I don't think Bond is one though I've read that without sociopathic tendencies of certain figures in history, particularly the narcissistic aspects of these personalities and the need to distinguish oneself for achievement and adulation, civilization would not have progressed as much as it has.
The whole lab baby background story certainly makes Zorin more interesting but he isn't really that much different to the similar bag of villains.
"Better make that two."
The difference between older films and newer films is that older ones don't have to beat you over the head to get the point across.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVLlZy4m23c
I agree, Gassy Man. I've always appreciated the way Aki's death was done. Connery handles the scene brilliantly, and I really feel for it. Connery was fantastic at showing how upset Bond was with a number of deaths, and Aki and Kerim Bey are the ones I think he's most hurt by. Jill Masterson's, Paula Kaplan's and Plenty O'Toole's deaths also clearly bother Bond. Roger Moore's Bond, by comparison, never shows much emotion when anyone dies, though at least he gets very upset at the thoughts of villains killing massive amounts of people to prove he's not a Sociopath.
I always thought that some of that grief was odd, though. Kerim I get, but Aki, Jill, Paula, and Plenty he knew for at most a few hours to a week, and although I can understand being shaken up, it doesn't make sense to be completely devastated, which is what Bond would and was at the death of Tracy. Takes the meaning out of it though when Bond acts like that with every acquaintance and sexual partner he met who dies. He should be somewhat conditioned to lose those who he knows.
I suppose you can just as easily read those emotions that Bond might have registered in that scene…just as much as others may say they drew nothing more than what his unmoved reaction betrayed.
No, I didn't expect histrionics from Bond in Aki's death scene, but definitely something more than the mild alarm over what just happened...and it was hard to tell whose death Bond was more preoccupied over, hers or the assassins. I also disagree with what you said about older and newer films; depending of course on the context, older films handled death more solemnly if not seriously as sensibilities were not as jaded as today’s.
Again, expectations are in the extreme, from being “somewhat conditioned” to “completely devastated.” Bond was bothered enough with Kerim’s death to take it out on Tania so you know he has the potential to be affected. But Paula’s death is another example of either extreme objectivity or relative indifference on Bond’s part.
That actually sounds cold. You’re saying that Bond shouldn’t have even felt whatever modicum of remorse he had when a professional acquaintance or recent sex partner had just died? I understand how the Bond character was being promoted as suave and cool that in the 60’s meant nonchalance, which I can accept as an extreme expression of the fantasy element of Bond. But too much of that coolness had become self-parody just as Bond transitioned into the suave and cool spy beginning with GF.
The issue is that older films understood showing the totality of behaviors -- tone of voice, body language, what is said (and what is not) to get their points across quickly and effectively. Modern films slap in a close up with swelling music. This isn't always the case, though. For instance, Bond's jokey reaction to Severine's execution in Skyfall definitely fits much better what you describe here for You Only Live Twice and seems pretty sociopathic.
GE, TND, TWINE, CR, QoS all make connections to the horrible past and question his coldness and lack of human-touch. I've never really found these questions and accusations to Bond very compelling - they're either there as a plot-device or just 1990s psycho-babble cliche. Either because he can't really react to them (lie down on the chez-lounge and pour his heart out) or the intentions on acting out these scenes were there but didn't translate (GE/TND) or "armour back on".
Dalton is probably the one who's gone as close as possible as getting emotional about death of people around him - Saunders a prime example.
Props to Moore in AVTAK too - his reaction to Tibbet
"Better make that two."
Dalton with Saunders' death is one of the best Bond acting moments.
I also appreciate Moore with Tibbett's death. He also is quite stirred at watching Zorin kill Howe. Even when seeing Jenny Flex float past him, he has the right reaction to save the people who are still alive. He really wants May Day to survive through the whole mine sequence. In Octopussy, Moore shows that Bond is disturbed by Vijay's death.
These reactions are all the type of reaction Bond show have to death. Bond should appear to be bothered by death, but he shouldn't let it get in the way of his job. He knows that dwelling over death isn't going to help his job. Moore's earlier films generally are the exception to this, when he doesn't seem to be bothered at all by what happens to any individuals and only when humanity in general is in danger.
I can think of at least two occasions where Bond identifies himself as "British Secret Service/British Government" instead of giving his name. (OP and TWINE)
So do you retract your previous statement that "Roger Moore's Bond, by comparison, never shows much emotion when anyone dies" ? There's also the bit where he tosses the dove pin and Ferrara's death was still weighing heavily on his mind.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I will modify my statement to say that Roger Moore doesn't show much emotion when people die in his earlier Bond films. I don't see it much in him until OP. In the 1970s, Moore does not care when anyone dies. I don't see much in his acting that shows he cares about Ferrara's death. He plays it cool when he kills Locque. He obviously is getting revenge, but he only says it and doesn't show it.